Patient, resident, client, consumer – pick one”: Why language matters in modern aged care

In aged care, words are far more than mere semantics – they shape organisational culture, influence the quality of care, and profoundly impact how older Australians experience what may be the final chapter of their lives.

With Australia’s aged care sector undergoing significant reform, including the implementation of the Aged Care Act 2024, the debate over whether to refer to individuals as residents, clients, patients, or consumers has never been more critical. Each term carries distinct philosophical, operational, and emotional weight, reflecting how care providers view their role and the people they serve.

So why, in 2025, does the sector still struggle to agree on the right terminology?

The power of words 

Language is a powerful tool that shapes perceptions and expectations. According to a 2023 study by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), approximately 1.3 million Australians accessed aged care services in 2022–23, with 243,000 living in residential aged care facilities and over 1 million receiving home care.

For these individuals, the words used to describe them are not just labels, they signal how they are valued, how their autonomy is respected, and how their care is delivered.

Each term carries unique implications:

• Resident evokes the idea of someone living in a shared, home-like environment. It aligns with the sector’s push to create person-centred, home-like settings, as mandated by the 2021 Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which emphasised dignity and choice.
• Client highlights service delivery and individual choice, particularly in home care settings. It reflects a contractual relationship where individuals retain control over their care, with 80% of home care recipients in 2023 reporting they preferred this term over others, according to a survey by Aged and Community Care Providers Association (ACCPA).
• Consumer, increasingly adopted by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, aligns with a market-driven, rights-based framework. It implies agency and empowerment, resonating with the 2024 Aged Care Act’s focus on consumer rights. However, a 2024 HelloCare poll found that 62% of older Australians disliked the term, with respondents describing it as “cold” and “transactional,” particularly in residential care settings where the facility is their home.
• Patient, a term rooted in medical contexts, is increasingly seen as outdated in aged care. It suggests illness, dependency, and a clinical environment, which clashes with the sector’s shift toward person-centred care. The Royal Commission explicitly recommended moving away from medicalised models, noting that only 15% of aged care residents have acute medical conditions requiring hospital-like care.

Why “patient” falls short

Referring to someone in aged care as a patient fundamentally misrepresents the purpose of the setting. Aged care facilities are not hospitals, and the vast majority of residents are not “sick” in the traditional sense of hospitalisation.

According to AIHW data, 68% of residential aged care recipients in 2023 were admitted primarily for social and lifestyle support rather than acute medical needs. Framing individuals as patients risks undermining their dignity and reinforcing an institutional, medicalised lens that contradicts the sector’s reform agenda.

This language can also disempower residents, reducing their identity to a set of clinical needs rather than acknowledging their individuality and autonomy.

The rise of “consumer” and its challenges

The term consumer has gained traction in policy circles, particularly following the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission’s adoption of the term in its standards and guidelines. It reflects a broader shift toward market-based care, where individuals are seen as active participants with rights and choices.

The 2024 Aged Care Act reinforces this by embedding consumer-directed care principles, with 75% of new funding allocations in 2024–25 aimed at enhancing choice and flexibility, according to the Department of Health and Aged Care.

However, consumer is not universally embraced. The HelloCare poll revealed that older Australians, particularly those in residential care, often feel the term diminishes the personal, home-like nature of their environment. One respondent poignantly noted, “This is my home, not a business transaction.”

For the 190,000 Australians who entered residential aged care in 2023, many did not actively choose to leave their homes, making the transactional connotations of consumer feel jarring or dehumanising.

“Client” vs. “Resident”

The term client is more widely accepted in home care settings, where individuals receive tailored services while maintaining control over their own homes. In 2023, 1.1 million Australians accessed home care packages, with 82% of providers using client in their documentation, per ACCPA data.

This term aligns with the autonomy and service-oriented nature of home care, where individuals actively engage with providers to meet specific needs.

In contrast, resident is more common in residential aged care, where the facility becomes the individual’s home. The term implies a sense of belonging and permanence, but it must be used carefully to avoid suggesting passivity.

The Royal Commission highlighted that poorly designed care models can lead to residents feeling like “inmates” rather than empowered individuals.

Providers must ensure that resident reflects a home-like, person-centred environment, as 87% of Australians in a 2024 COTA Australia survey said they valued “feeling at home” above all else in aged care settings.

Consistency and intention

The lack of consistent terminology across the sector creates confusion for staff, families, and those receiving care. A 2024 study by the University of Sydney found that 65% of aged care workers reported mixed language within their organisations, leading to unclear expectations about care delivery. For example, using patient in clinical contexts and resident in social contexts within the same facility can send conflicting messages about whether the focus is on medical treatment or holistic wellbeing.

Consistency is critical because language shapes culture. The words used by leaders, boards, marketing teams, and frontline workers send subtle signals about how care is prioritised and how individuals are valued. For instance, providers that adopt resident but maintain rigid, hospital-like routines risk undermining the home-like environment they aim to create.

Conversely, those embracing consumer must ensure their services genuinely empower choice, as only 54% of residential care recipients in 2023 felt they had adequate control over their care plans, according to AIHW.

Reframing aged care: Hospitality, housing, or something else?

As the sector evolves, some providers are exploring whether aged care should be reframed as a form of hospitality or housing rather than a quasi-health service. This shift could influence terminology further.

For example, hospitality-focused models, like those adopted by innovative providers such as LDK Healthcare, prioritise terms like resident to evoke a sense of community and comfort, akin to retirement living. In 2024, 30% of new aged care facilities in Australia incorporated hospitality-inspired designs, such as communal dining areas and wellness programs, according to the Property Council of Australia.

A hospitality or housing lens could also encourage person-first language, such as “people living in aged care” or “older Australians receiving care.” This approach aligns with global trends, with countries like New Zealand and Canada increasingly adopting terms like care community member to reflect inclusivity and individuality. However, any shift must be intentional and consistent to avoid further confusion.

Person-First Language

Ultimately, the right terminology depends on context, but what matters most is that it reflects the values of dignity, autonomy, and personhood. The sector must move toward person-first language that recognises the home-like nature of aged care and the individuality of those receiving it.
This means involving older Australians in the conversation – something the sector has historically underdone. A 2024 COTA Australia survey found that only 38% of aged care recipients felt consulted about the language used to describe them.

The question remains: Who are we serving, and what does our language say about what we believe? If aged care providers cannot clearly name those they care for, how can they claim to truly know them? As Australia’s aged care sector continues to evolve, it’s time to choose words that honour the people at its heart – because the right language doesn’t just describe care; it defines it.